When Ed, Pien and I started Bridgevaria.nl in March and Bridgevaria.com mid June 2009, we wanted to make a site about the game of bridge; that delightful game (or should I say: sport) in all of its facets: bidding, play, the Laws. That's where we wanted to write about, every day a new article: columns to read, but also puzzles for visitors to solve. Furthermore we began a questions section, in which we gave thorough answers. To questions about how that deal should have been bid, played and/or defended; about how the director (our very own, highly regarded Martin Sinot) should solve those irregularities.
We were convinced that Bridgevaria had to be free, without any fuzz: no log-ins, no passwords. Bridge fun, and only that, had to be the key.
This was also the reason we chose not to publish any bridge news or results. Many other sites do so, there was no need for us to do it. And we very consciously chose not to make Bridgevaria a forum for bridge-officials, or publish policy papers, agenda's or minutes of meetings. Useful items, no doubt about that, but Bridgevaria only deals with bridge fun.

We think that we succeeded pretty well in achieving our goals these last (almost) two years. The site is flourishing. Therefore I think this is the right moment to say goodbye. The reason I have to say goodbye is that I can't afford to spend the required amount of time anymore.
Ed & Pien are continuing with the Dutch site — so it will probably improve… (I thought it best to mention this myself, saving Ed the trouble to point this out). The future of the English site is still uncertain, at the moment I'm writing this.
When saying farewell, one is supposed to write/speak some wise and/or critical words. I think I'd better not do so; I'm neither the type to seriously criticise, nor to show 'The Path That Should Be Followed'.

Although…

In part one of this series (click deceptive plays at bridge -1) we met with the wheeler-dealer (W-D). This is the type of opponent that regularly makes a monkey out of us since he knows all the tricks — meaning deceptive plays — in the book and knows how to use them as well. These difficult opponents unnerve us since, having learned the hard way, we do not trust a single card they play. We always suspect a snag. As a consequence we sometimes end up down in a contract anyone can make. For instance because we fail to believe that the queen dropping under the ace really was bare ('surely that's another false card'). Or we assume that king to be wrong despite the fact that a small one to the queen won the trick ('probably he has retained the king').
This way such a W-D develops into our nemesis: even when playing perfectly normal cards, he somehow makes us throw away points, as we assume he is taking us for a ride.

I find it difficult to believe people who claim not to care whether they win or lose, as long as they enjoy themselves playing. I think every bridge player likes to win and hates to lose.
The way you win or lose plays a part as well though. Winning is particularly nice if you do it by pretty declarer play or defence. Winning as a result of blundering opponents is far less satisfying.
With losing, things are less straight forward. Getting beaten by technically superior opponents usually is bearable — though often it is hard to admit that they were better: regularly we come up with excuses like 'they were lucky with that slam succeeding on a finesse, while we were unlucky twice, going down in game because the trump suit split 4-1'. Often however, an objective analysis will show that good and bad luck were pretty evenly divided.
Really frustrating is losing after being taken for a ride by a wily opponent. Having fallen for his deceptive play, we will afterwards gracefully congratulate the wheeler-dealer (W-D) but internally we will curse him.
Take this deal from match point (MP) play (meaning overtricks are important):

An incorrect claim usually leads to a loss for the claimer. But not always: in 'I told you so!' part 1 (here) the claimer profited from his wrong claim.
In his classic The Expert Game Terence Reese describes how an incorrect claim unexpectedly turned out well. Although he was the victim, he saw the funny side of it. (The story below is the last deal of the last chapter —The Vice, The Winkle and the Stepping-Stone — handling about entry-squeezes).

		♠	K 9
		♥	A 10 6 4 2
		♦	Q J 10
		♣	A Q 8
♠	8 5 2			♠	A Q J 10 3
♥	J 8 7 3			♥	K Q 9
♦	9 6 4 3			♦	A 5
♣	10 5			♣	7 4 2
		♠	7 6 4
		♥	5
		♦	K 8 7 2
		♣	K J 9 6 3

To me humour is an essential part of bridge. If there is not an occasional burst of laughter something is missing, I think.
The grand slam below is such a side-splitter. It originates from the English Mixed Teams Championship 1956. South blundered and as a result she made a grand slam in an unbelievable way. Without the blunder she almost certainly wouldn't have made it.